No, Japan has ended the usage of floppy disks last year, besides a single case relating to vehicle recycling.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/japan-declares-victory-effort-end-government-use-floppy-disks-2024-07-03/

Reading his Wiki page, he does sound rather reasonable. Support for Occupy Wallstreet, running as a UK Labour candidate, openly calling not to elect Trump and also calling the US Libertarian Party “lunatics”.

That is the clear difference to close source. YouTube, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, Twitter, PowerPoint or Word are amazing names…

You pay 10% for the product when imported. However there are a lot of people, work and capital involved to transport the product and actually sell it to you.

Also a lot is also not imported, but made in the US. That is especially true for a lot of food, electricity, gasoline and even quite a bit of actual physical products.

We are talking about 128million non White Americans and that is not including white Latinos. Just to put it into context the Holocaust killed 6million Jews, the Partition of India moved 12-20million people and created a lot of suffering doing so and somewhat similar numbers in displaced people in Europe after WW2(moving borders and the like). Those are some of the darkest chapters of human history and this would be an order of magnitude large then those.

First of all, doing that would create a massive reaction. We are talking 38% of the US population being deported, so a civil war is very much an option.

The honest answer is that a lot of Americans are very well educated and rather rich. So if they would be allowed to leave, then they would be welcomed by other countries. However we are talking about numbers here, which would compeletly change the housing and job markets here. The locals will not like that and close their countries off. Still a good number would make it. At that point the US has two options: Wage a war to take some land for them or kill them. Taking land would lead to hatred of the Americans including the deported. We are also talking about a massive country here and probably a lot of death. Obviously killing everybody would be even worse. There is also the option of pushing them into say Alaska and make that independent. However that is unlikely.

The US economy would be absolutly destroyed by this. If you deport them quickly, it would lead to shortages. Most certainly shortage of workers, which would indeed push up wages. Housing would end up being cheap and people would move to the best cities of the country. On the international stage the US would be widely hated and probably be hit with sanctions(they deport a lot of people and that causes huge problems for other countries). So long term it might actually be good for white workers. However the rich would hate it, due to it destroying their cheap workforce. Short term the US would have massive shortages and suffer a lot.

Even just deporting a larger part of the non-white population would cause a lot of problems.

I do not. I can read or watch movies while riding a train. No chance in a car.

Great 25 minutes of very relaxing work…

It does not even need to be a majority. Actually doing it makes you more believable when you promote any sort of action. It also works as a sort of promotion in itself. As in people can see you cycle, not eat meat or have solar panels on your roof. By doing it, you also create demand for the alternative, like for example solar panels, bicycles or vegan products. That makes those alternatives easier and cheaper to purchase. It also makes it politically easier to ban something, as part of the society is not impacted at all.

In the end calling somebody an idiot, for promoting individual action due it not being an attempt to change society is just dumb. After all anybody who does that promotion tries to bring other people to do something. At that point it really is no longer the action of an individual. Honestly it really is a simple way to lobby against such actions on a bigger scale.

Looks like they plan to introduce some sort of change in the next parliament session.

Wales just moved from first past the post to proportional under a Labour government in the Senedd.

Labour had a bit more then a third of the votes, which is pretty close to were Reform is polling today. However Labour won a massive majority with those votes. If Labour wants to prevent a Reform victory they need to change the election system. It is even worse for the Tories. So long term Tory supporters will cheer them on.

We are heading into a feudal system of a sort. The wealth gap is absolutly massive and the only way to end up in the upper class is to inherit. As per usual the population feels that the system is unfair, but is unable to see the real problem. Media is really pushing far right talking points, as the upper class realizes that the system is broken and a real revolution is a problem. Thats how the US ended up with a de facto monarchy. The UK is moving towards that pretty quickly too.

The good news is that Labour might make some really usefull changes. Mainly end first past the post to prevent Reform from taking over. That might very well allow left wing parties like the LibDems and Greens to win more seats and change the narrative.

You could in theory eat whale meat, which would have even bigger bones. I do not recommend that, but certainly more possible then dinosaurs.

Ostrich eggs are a very real option.

You need genetic material for that and unfortunatly that does not preserve even close to well enough to clone a non avian dinosaur.

Why do you need me to come up with reasons justify your hate booner for China?

See? Moving the goalposts. Moving from cumulative, the real important metric, to per capita current emissions during a renewable transition, because otherwise the data doesn’t fit your preconceived, chauvinistic anti-china views.

I initially just wanted to point out that China does in fact consume a lot more coal, then you claimed. If you want to have the moral discussion, we can have that. The fundamental problem with your logic, is that you presume future emissions do not matter. The fact of the matter is that we will emit much more in the coming decades. Higher current per capita emissions make it much more likely that future emissions will be higher as well. At the 2023 rate of emissions, China emits as much as the EU cumulative did until 2023 in 25 years. Last year China increased its emissions by 0.8%. Current UN forecast put the population of China 633million and the EU at 347million. I hate to say it, but it is very realistic to presume that China ends up just as guilty by your metric as say the EU.

First of all greenhouse gases not just CO2.

It is also a metric China will not want to use. Per capita annual emissions are already higher in China then in many Western countries. More so UN population forecast shows Chinas population falling much more quickly then that of the West.

Now what will you come up with? Suddenly coal numbers don’t matter anymore?

Do you think I am here to hate on China or something? Your inital claim was:

How much coal has China cumulatively used in its history compared to the US or Europe? Spoiler alert: much less.

And when you looked at the numbers and you were clearly wrong, you moved the goal poast again:

So yeah, China would have to literally consume twice as much coal as it’s already consumed to reach US values of per-capita historical cumulative coal consumption.

Or 50% more to be at the level of the EU, using the Our World in Data numbers from 1900(thanks btw). Given current production, China would overtake the EU around 2040 in that metric.

Maybe that is because I have the elementary school education necessary to understand that burning coal and gas also causes emissions. So when I am looking at cummulative coal consumption, I have the very basic common sense to not look at CO2.

EDIT: Btw 2/3 of EU emissions happened in the last 60 years. So this very likely shows most of the EU coal consumption. Also if you happen to have actual coal numbers and want to share them, I am happy to have a look at them. But please no CO2 = coal bs.

Pollution per GDP is a bad measure. Mali has a high CO2 intensity, but the GDP per capita is low, so pollution is low. The best measures are emissions per capita in consumption and production terms. China is not a saint in either of those metrics, being rather close to the EU in both of them today.